5DS for landscapes ?

gipper51 said:

smartphoto said:

And yes, once I moved from 5D mk II to 1 DX2, I was shocked how obvious was the lack of those 1.8 Mpix. 35 is not about the same as 50 - to me at least.

Click to expand...

This doesn't make much sense to me. You can really tell the difference between a 5472 x 3648 image vs. a 5616 x 3744 image on resolution alone? You lost about 3% linear resolution.

Click to expand...

That was my thought, too. Something else as simple as picture style difference can make more difference in perceived resolution and/or acuity than that small resolution difference. I think that the way I have my cameras set, my 6D is softer at the pixel level than my 7D2 in the OOC JPEGs, with the same lens and f-number, which is the opposite of what is really happening. Sometimes I forget this, and get disappointed by the results when I zoom into the review image embedded in the 6D RAW image, until I remember that the max is limited by picture style.

That's not to say, of course, that I wouldn't choose 3% more linear resolution, AOTBE, for a slightly higher cost. The benefits are there always, even if small in each photo.

Picture styles only effect the JPEG that you see on your camera screen or your computer if you only import the JPEG. Picture style does not mater if you import and work with RAW images. I suspect that the difference in the picture styles you see in your two cameras is the difference in sharpening that is applied to each style. It has nothing to do with the number of pixels. 50 mega pixels gives you more data to work with regardless of what you plane to do with it.

KariP said:

e are convinced and believe - we see what we see.

In real life it is very difficult to see any differences between 35 and 50MP in any printed image. Serious pixel peeping can of course reveal something. Practical meaning ?

The idea of great photography is not cropping 10-15% from the edges - that is the 35 vs 50 difference

Click to expand...

As others said you have not used a 5DSR. Look and see. Even if you end up generating 2k pixel JPEGs as the output on a screen...

And a 100Mpixel sensor will improve the data over a 50Mpixel one.

--
__________________________________________________
Grand Canyon - https://flic.kr/s/aHskge43XT
Yosemite - https://flic.kr/s/aHsjpUoCeG -- https://flic.kr/s/aHskhT3yBk

Terry K1 said:

Hello folks,

The 5DS has gotten my attention with it's 50MP sensor. I would use it for landscapes, and portraits of my family. Years ago, I had the original 5D, and loved it. Then, I used all of the Lenses, but now I would like to adapt my Pentax primes, and also get a 15mm Irix for Canon. I normally shoot at low ISO settings. Would the 5DS be a good choice for me? I not looking to replace my Pentax K1, but as a second body with higher resolution.

Click to expand...

Terry, tell me if you know different, but as I understand it, you can't adapt Pentax lenses to Canon full frame without modifying them - the lever on the mount which stops down the aperture protrudes too far into the mirror box on a Canon and impedes the mirror. It is possible to file the lever down so that it doesn't foul the mirror, but I'm not sure if it's possible to do this without affecting its use on a Pentax. Either way, you may be reducing the value of your lenses.

Aside from this, while the 5DS/R is a fine camera, your K1 has much better dynamic range, which as others have said, has arguably more value for landscape than the additional resolution. It also has arguably better ergonomics and a number of features very useful for landscape that the Canon doesn't have - eg tilting screen, LEDs which light up the back, composition adjustment etc. And in situations where you can use pixel-shift, it can potentially give you more resolution than the 5DS R. I would argue that the biggest advantage of the Canon for your purpose is lens choice, but whether it's worth getting one for that reason depends on many factors.

jonby said:

Terry, tell me if you know different, but as I understand it, you can't adapt Pentax lenses to Canon full frame without modifying them - the lever on the mount which stops down the aperture protrudes too far into the mirror box on a Canon and impedes the mirror.

Click to expand...

That is absolutely correct for the 1970's Pentax M series lens I have, and I have ripped padding foam on my EOS 6D mirror to prove it! Fortunately, the mirror did not get bent out of alignment.

I knew that the lens could only be used on Canon APS-C when I bought the adapter, but a year or so later I forgot all about this and put it on my 6D. Perhaps the makers of adapters could have created an EF-S version of the adapter, to prevent this.

John Sheehy said:

jonby said:

Terry, tell me if you know different, but as I understand it, you can't adapt Pentax lenses to Canon full frame without modifying them - the lever on the mount which stops down the aperture protrudes too far into the mirror box on a Canon and impedes the mirror.

Click to expand...

That is absolutely correct for the 1970's Pentax M series lens I have, and I have ripped padding foam on my EOS 6D mirror to prove it! Fortunately, the mirror did not get bent out of alignment.

Click to expand...

Yes it's easy to forget. Glad your 6D wasn't damaged too bad. I think it's true of most, if not all more recent K-mount lenses as well, unless there's a version of the mount which uses electronic aperture actuation - can't remember now.

John Sheehy said:

I knew that the lens could only be used on Canon APS-C when I bought the adapter, but a year or so later I forgot all about this and put it on my 6D. Perhaps the makers of adapters could have created an EF-S version of the adapter, to prevent this.

Click to expand...

Yes you're probably right that the adapter makers should make them EF-S only. There is a workaround where you can put the camera in live view with no lens on, mount the Pentax lens, take the shot and take the lens off which avoids the mirror strike, but it's really not practical and probably not good for the camera.

100 is more than 50 and that is more than 35.... yes yes. 50 vs 100 means 25% more resolution.

I have a quite nice print of a photo taken with 7D ( 10MP) - size is 100cm x 150cm. It could be better with 5DMkIV and perhaps even better with 50MP.

There is also a suitable viewing distance for big prints....

I do not print so big pictures very often.

IMO dynamic range is more important especially in landscape photography. APS C Fujifilm camera are also good for landscapes because of that. FF has its benefits - but it is not just the amount of pixels.

The 5ds and 5dsR are very much landscape specialists - nothing can touch it in 35mm FF - paired with the right lenses of course.

Those that harp about dynamic range probably have not done serious landscapes before - you can add as many stops of DR as you want by bracketing in 99.9% of landscape shots - even handheld.

As for lenses - not sure if the Pentax will convert flawlessly, but there are a gazillion affordable third party, used and previous generation lenses for sale out there which will give you brilliant IQ. (For example some 24mm, 28mm and 35mm primes)

Vivid1 said:

The 5ds and 5dsR are very much landscape specialists - nothing can touch it in 35mm FF - paired with the right lenses of course.

Those that harp about dynamic range probably have not done serious landscapes before - you can add as many stops of DR as you want by bracketing in 99.9% of landscape shots - even handheld.

Click to expand...

I can't speak for the others 'harping' about DR, but I certainly have done lots of serious landscape. Yes you can bracket, but it's a PITA, resulting in 3x the amount of data to store and manage and lots more work in post production. Given that there is commonly a lot of movement and change in many landscape situations (light, wind etc), it can take a lot of work to avoid artifacts in any composite. Personally, I often focus-bracket for maximum DOF. Having to do exposure bracketing as well just adds to the storage and post-production burden. And with the 5DS R I have often needed to do this. Yes the extra resolution is nice to have, but given that the OP already has a camera with good resolution and great dynamic range (and intends to keep that camera), I would have thought he would be better off spending the money on lenses.

Vivid1 said:

As for lenses - not sure if the Pentax will convert flawlessly, but there are a gazillion affordable third party, used and previous generation lenses for sale out there which will give you brilliant IQ. (For example some 24mm, 28mm and 35mm primes)

Click to expand...

Beautiful shot. Thanks.

I haven't switched yet, and probably won't. I just like the image quality.

Then I would just use Canon lenses.

Terry K1 said:

I haven't switched yet, and probably won't. I just like the image quality.

Click to expand...

I'm obsessed with dynamic range - because of practical reasons. I'm visiting archipelago with my camera gear regularly. A couple of days ago i had 5DMkIV and Fujifilm X-E3.

X-E3 with a polariser solves some problems, but somehow i really like the IQ i get from 5DMkIV - and the amount of MPs is surely enough.

Some samples , that possibly show what i mean with contrasty light and DR. On a cloudy day less DR is needed ...

Images to show that i also take photographs out there. Not the best as landscape art, but perhaps they tell something about my needs.

I'm not saying , that MkIV is the best possible landscape camera - your Pentax could be better (or probably is ). Less DR is not a good thing anyways







































--
Kari
I started SLR photography in 1968, first DSLR was Canon 40D in 2007. Now Fujifilm X-E3 is my favourite traveling camera - also NEW! 5DMkIV for landscapes, BIF/nature .

I agree with you. I use 5DM4 for Portrait. But just get 5DSr for my Landscape. I prefer it more.

KariP said:

In real life it is very difficult to see any differences between 35 and 50MP in any printed image. Serious pixel peeping can of course reveal something. Practical meaning ?

The idea of great photography is not cropping 10-15% from the edges - that is the 35 vs 50 difference

Click to expand...

The 5D mark IV is a 30mp camera, not 35mp. The linear gain of the 5DsR over the 5D4 is 29%. The area gain, which is more relevant since we look at 2D images and not lines, is 66%. On top of that the 5D4 has a much stronger AA filter than even the 5Ds version.

So yes, there is a difference, a significant one. That's not to knock the 5D4. It has very good IQ and is a very capable camera. And I can absolutely see why some people would get it over the 5Ds/sR.

I would describe the difference this way: 5D4 files feel like peak 35mm sensor files. Very good, and capable of making very good prints. But 5Ds/sR files feel like mid-range MF files, as do other 35mm sensors in the 45-61mp range. If you had a gallery showing of 36-48" prints from MF sensors in the 40-60mp range and you slipped in a few 5Ds/sR prints, nobody would know. With good glass the sharpness and fine detail is breathtaking.

If you want immersive saturation of detail, you want a 5Ds or 5DsR. Or if you can afford it, the R5.

Edit: earlier in this thread the 5D4 was brought up as a point of comparison. I realize now that KariP likely went back to comparing to the K1 at 36mp.

Vivid1 said:

Those that harp about dynamic range probably have not done serious landscapes before - you can add as many stops of DR as you want by bracketing in 99.9% of landscape shots - even handheld.

Click to expand...

You can push shadows 3ev with a 5DsR, and 4ev with a little NR. It's really not that bad on dynamic range. ETTR and remember that you have about 2/3ev highlight recovery.

Yes, there will be some scenes where you need two exposures on a 5DsR where one would do on a 5D4 or D8x0. But it isn't that often. And as you point out, it can even be done handheld. Though IMHO you will want an IS lens for this.

This is an old thread but if I were asked the question today I would ask the op if they have tried using Photoshop’s Super Res on the K1s 36mp raw files. I played with it a little yesterday and it does work.

Bob

Photoclever said:

KariP said:

In real life it is very difficult to see any differences between 35 and 50MP in any printed image. Serious pixel peeping can of course reveal something. Practical meaning ?

The idea of great photography is not cropping 10-15% from the edges - that is the 35 vs 50 difference

Click to expand...

The 5D mark IV is a 30mp camera, not 35mp. The linear gain of the 5DsR over the 5D4 is 29%. The area gain, which is more relevant since we look at 2D images and not lines, is 66%. On top of that the 5D4 has a much stronger AA filter than even the 5Ds version.

So yes, there is a difference, a significant one. That's not to knock the 5D4. It has very good IQ and is a very capable camera. And I can absolutely see why some people would get it over the 5Ds/sR.

I would describe the difference this way: 5D4 files feel like peak 35mm sensor files. Very good, and capable of making very good prints. But 5Ds/sR files feel like mid-range MF files, as do other 35mm sensors in the 45-61mp range. If you had a gallery showing of 36-48" prints from MF sensors in the 40-60mp range and you slipped in a few 5Ds/sR prints, nobody would know. With good glass the sharpness and fine detail is breathtaking.

If you want immersive saturation of detail, you want a 5Ds or 5DsR. Or if you can afford it, the R5.

Edit: earlier in this thread the 5D4 was brought up as a point of comparison. I realize now that KariP likely went back to comparing to the K1 at 36mp.

Click to expand...

A couple of weeks ago i ordered a 80cm x 120cm print from my older FUJI X-T1 file from well known printer/ place. I did the PP with Capture One pro because DR of the original file made it easy. Resolution from that APS C sensor was surely enough and i have not noticed any problems. The Person who got it (a landscape from Zurich area) was very happy.
In real life a 5D xxx could have been a bit better when pixel peeped on a good 5K screen.

If someone would like to hear my advice : dynamic range and a good lens comes first. Ois or IBIS helps if tripod is not an option. Amount of pixels is not so important if we print images. Pixelpeeping is an other hobby. Cartography is something else. There are good cameras.

KariP said:

A couple of weeks ago i ordered a 80cm x 120cm print from my older FUJI X-T1 file from well known printer/ place. I did the PP with Capture One pro because DR of the original file made it easy. Resolution from that APS C sensor was surely enough and i have not noticed any problems.

Click to expand...

For a print of that size you're down to roughly 100 ppi from a X-T1 vs roughly 180 ppi from a 5DsR. That's close to the difference between a traditional monitor (72-96 ppi) and a 4k or Retina screen (typically 200+ ppi). If the scene had also been shot on a 5DsR the difference would be obvious at that size.

That's not to say the print you made was not good nor that the customer should not be happy. Subject is paramount. And I have no doubt you did a good job preparing it and that the print is a good one. But the difference is there, and there are people who want as much fine detail as they can get for large prints.

KariP said:

If someone would like to hear my advice : dynamic range and a good lens comes first.

Click to expand...

Just a side note: the "bad" DR on the 5DsR is as good as any of Fuji's crop cameras. And I wouldn't call any of them "bad" just because they can't do the extreme push of a Sony A7R IV, a Nikon D850, or a Canon R5.

Good glass is important, perhaps more important for someone starting out since you will upgrade bodies more often than lenses.

Photoclever said:

KariP said:

A couple of weeks ago i ordered a 80cm x 120cm print from my older FUJI X-T1 file from well known printer/ place. I did the PP with Capture One pro because DR of the original file made it easy. Resolution from that APS C sensor was surely enough and i have not noticed any problems.

Click to expand...

For a print of that size you're down to roughly 100 ppi from a X-T1 vs roughly 180 ppi from a 5DsR. That's close to the difference between a traditional monitor (72-96 ppi) and a 4k or Retina screen (typically 200+ ppi). If the scene had also been shot on a 5DsR the difference would be obvious at that size.

That's not to say the print you made was not good nor that the customer should not be happy. Subject is paramount. And I have no doubt you did a good job preparing it and that the print is a good one. But the difference is there, and there are people who want as much fine detail as they can get for large prints.

Photoclever said:

If someone would like to hear my advice : dynamic range and a good lens comes first.

Click to expand...

Just a side note: the "bad" DR on the 5DsR is as good as any of Fuji's crop cameras. And I wouldn't call any of them "bad" just because they can't do the extreme push of a Sony A7R IV, a Nikon D850, or a Canon R5.

Good glass is important, perhaps more important for someone starting out since you will upgrade bodies more often than lenses.

Click to expand...

Of course there is a visible difference - as you say. Big FF sensor gives more resolution - and when looked very closely more resolution really is there.

I'm not a professional landscape photographer - this big 80cmx120cm print was a present to my daughter who wanted a landscape picture from Switzerland for her living room wall. Her older brother is living at the moment in Zürich... Anyway, 50 % more details (from 5DsR) can have some practical meaning in some cases. IMO not so much importance in my photos. The very fine details and structures come visible only from a very short viewing distance - they are there if the print is also good - but to me the idea of landscape photography is very much something else. "Devil is in the details" ;-) ;-) or "God is in the details" , depends

I understand what you want - more sharper small details - but the image does not always come "better" with magnifying glass. There could be many good uses for extreme resolution in some more scientific or technical cases, astronomy or whatever. Blurry milky way is not so impressive ...

This gets more like philosophical and you have obviously much more technical understanding and interest .... to me the getting a great landscape photograph is more like looking for the best moment and place - and that is really difficult. Some great moment happens only sometimes and usually i'm not there... . APS C Fujifilm X-E3 camera is much easier to carry to a mountaintop , FF 5DMkIV images look better and i really like the FF camera (but it is big and heavy with some good lenses) - of course i have the great R5 on my bucket list ... some of my lenses will be the limiting factor if i want more resolution.